^ ®^^ REMARKS .B98 Copy 1 /v'.m[ HON. AfP.^"BUTLER, OF S. CAROLINA, ON THE PROPOSITION TO ADMIT CALIPOMIA AS A STATE INTO THE UNION, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 15, 1850. /^ WASHINGTON: PRIMTBD AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 1850. A/ ADMISSION OF CALIFORNU AS A STATE. Thn pending question before tlie Senate being on the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] to instruct the Committee on Territories "to report a bill for the admission of the State of California, unconnected with any other subject"— Mr. BUTLER, who was entitled to the floor, rose and said: I did not rise yesterday for the pur- fose of making a speech of any great length, and shall confine my remarks this morning to very narrow limits. I rose yesterday with the view of indicating the course which I wished this subject to take, and I was very happy when the Senator from Missouri offered his amendment. I did not wish those subjects connected with California to be disconnected with the discussion of the other subjects embraced in the resolutions of the honor- able Senator from Kentucky. We all have duties to perform — very grave duties to perform; and I should be very sorry to see any part of this sub- ject referred to any committee at all, until every Senator on this floor, if he chooses to do so, has given his views; so that tlje committee hereafter may by possibility frame such a plan as will result in the adjustment of this agitating question. I say " by possibility," sir. That word implies at once my apprehension and fears for the result of events. That result will depend altogether on the course and determination of the North. That section has the power to solve and fulfill the possibility which now exists of settling this fearful question. Mr. President, we all see that there is a storm ahead of us; indeed, we have already fell some of its hazardous agitations. Under such circumstan- ces, it seems to me that every one on board, how- ever humble, should be allowed to make such suggestions as may save the vessel from ap- prehended shipwreck. After all shall have given their views, the course and policy to be pursued will be developed. The juncture of ou; affairs cannot be met but by a full survey of all the con- sequences which may grow out of it. It. is the part of wisdom to seize upon the advantages of transient opportunity. One good thought, one happy suggestion at the right time, is worth all the splendid generalities that arc beyond the influence of an actual occasion. Events have moved on with a dangerous velocity, and opportunities for settling this question have been allowed to pass that will never return. Whilst we are approaching rapids and shoals — perhaps cataracts — it will be in vain to look back at the havens of safety which we have passed, and to which we can have no return. By keeping California connected with other subjects with which it is indissolubly associated, we may retain a control over this subject that may presei^t an opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity, to settle it. Once part with it, by admitting California at once, it may be fatal, because irrevocable. I must confess, Mr. President, that I was sur- prised to see a disposition manifested from so im- posing a source to give California preference in the discussion, and to separate her fate from that of others, in which it ought to be involved. It cer- tainly is so involved in the resolutions of the hon- orable Senator from Kentucky. And why take it out of them and give it a separate consideration, I cannot see. It may be thought that it is the strongest question for the opponents of the South, and therefore that it can be used with success as a pioneer. On the other hand, it may be looked on as a pioneer of invasion — and I am sure it will be so regarded — and other parties will take a more certain refuge in the increased strength which it can inapart. We all should speak candidly upon this subject. I intend to deliver myself — and f hope I always may — without passion or prejudice. Indeed, at this juncture of our affairs, they would be dan- gerous counsellors. If we can relieve ourselves from the difficulties that surround us, it must be by calm temper and firm resolution, with a determi- nation, as far as we can, to do right. I know that I cannot free my mind altogether from the influ- ences which sectional duties impose upon me. I have duties to perform to one section of this Union which require me to discharge them in a spirit of firmness and, I hope, fairness. Perhaps I cannot go as far as the honorable Senator from Kentucky e.xpressed himself yesterday evening willing to do. My desire is to save the Union, if 1 can do it by saving the rigiits and honor of the Slate which I represent. One was made to protect the other; and, when that office shall be abandoned, the Union, or those who wield its influence, is made to assume the position of an antagonist, and to pre- sent considerations involving a painful alternative; an alternative of submission to an acknowledged power under a sacred name, or that of self respect and self-preservation in the Slates whose rights are threatened. These alternatives in llicir varioua aspects, both past and future, excite no doubt very diff-irent feelings. Feeling that I am identified with the weaker but the wronged party, it may not be surprising ihat I should partake of the sen- timents or sympathies of those who may seem to take an adversary position. When, the other day, the Senator from Ken- lucky said he knew no South in his allegiance, and again repeated there was no allegiance in his mind [ to the South, I was prepared to liear him say, | " nor to the North, nor to the West, nor to the East, but to the Union;'' and with such a declara- tion I might have been satisfied; buttosingleout the South as not claimina: his allegiance gave me pain. Mr. CLAY. I think I did say die North. I do not know that I went all around the dit^erent | points of the compass. That is what I meant, I however, if 1 did not use the expression. I meant j then, and I mean it now, that I owe no allegiance j to any one section — East, North, West, or South, j And I know, I repeat, of but two sovereignties to j whom I owe allegiance — the one the Union, and the other my own State. That is what I meant. Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman regards his first allegiance to the Union, and then to Kentucky. I may, perhaps, regard my relations to the South somewhat different fiom those of the lionorable Senator from Kentucky. I somewhat reverse the order in which he cliooSes to speak of allegiance. My allegiance is first to South Carolina, and through South Carolina to the Union. I know no other Union than which has been recognized by the State of South Carolina. I know of no other allegiance but my allegiance to South Carolina. My allegiance to the Union is through South Car- olina. These dilferent views may lead our minds ' to run through difTerent channels. As being iden- tified with the past glories of the Union, he may I well look upon it with the pious veneration of a ! child, and he may be prepared to look upon the partial dispensations of a parent with feelings of forgiveness — especially so long as he may be re- ffarded as one of her favorites in the domestic fam- ily circle. Whilst I love those who have a common interest with me — who are indissolubly involved in a com- I mon destiny — i have no aversion to this Union as it was created. When I left my constituents, there was no deliberate design among them that it should be dissolved. Such an act had not been looked to as a matter of policy or purpose. It is an event depending on consequences over which the minor- ity had no control. Whether, seeing these con- 1! sequences, they would have consented to the form- !l ation of the Union, I cannot tell; but its dissolution j! after it has been formed, presents a different ques- |l tion, and one of the gravest solicitude. Under the I feeling inspired by such a solicitude, it wns natural that the distinguished Senator should have pre- L sented himself in this crisis as a mediator; it was ' an office well worthy of his reputation. But I am !' not mistaken in saying that it isa mediation which j must fail, if it cannot present anything better than ji the tor'Jiso/a compromise contained in the different | resolutions whi( h he has offered. Cnmpmmise ! i It« name is frailty — its consequences treachery — 11 giving the stronger party the power to u.se it as an I! instrument, and ihrow it away at its pleasure. The I compromises that have been offered ftill t;\r short of [ the occasion. They neither satisfy the present, nor l! offer security for the future. The stronger power '• don't want them, and the weaker power, in honor', II cannot accept them. The South might be satisfied :l with an adjustment such as would restore confi- {J dence, and give her perfect security by something i' more than the decision of a tempted majority. It is not for the South to propose compromises. She cannot and ought not. It is not for the South, in my opinion, to settle this question. If I had my way, I would commit them to a committee of northern men exclusively, to see what would be j the terms upon which they would settle it. I know, sir, that this thing of admitting States into the Union, as California is likely to be admitted, will aggravate very much the dissensions which exist in different portions of this Union. Califor- nia might have been placed in a condition in which she could have claimed admission into the Union, with all the provisions now contained in her con- stitution. Some of her friends now were her real enemies, and denounced her most. She may not have been forced to assume a position unfavorable to her success, and even dangerous in its conse- quencies to the safety of the republic. Under the circumstances which are connected with her claim for admission — and they are full of historical interest — I cannot consent, sir, to her coming into the Confederacy at this time. Such an event will be adopting the acts of usurpation, and violating all the securities of usage and prece- dent. In saying that the people of California have made to themselves a government by usurpation, I associate nothing offensive with the word. I use the word usurpation in its stiict legal sense, and I would not wish to be understood as referring to any of the parties concerned, or to California, with any feelings of hostility, or with any purpose to throw factious obstacles in the way. But, Mr. President, if the act of forming a gov- ernment in California without the consent of Con- gress previously obtained, or by implication, ob- tained. under the sanction of a territorial government, is not a usurpation, I have read the Constitution in vain, and tlo not understand its import. This power in the Constitution is expressed in a very few words: " New Stiites may be admitted by the Congress into tbis Union ; hut no new States shall be formed ororected witliin the juiisdiclion olaiiy other Slate, ni)r any State be formed by tlie junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States con- cerned, as well as of the Congress." There is not a word in the Constitution with regard to the time when Congress shall give her consent, whether before or after. The consent given here evidently is exactly that kind of consent which Congress ought to give for the erection of a State anywhere. By way of illustration of the proposition I have rather indicated than laid down with any degree of precision, I will make a supposition: Suppose Georgia — and I speak of that State by way of illustration, as she is one of the largest of the States of the South — should divide her State into East and West Georgia, and at the next session of Congress should send here two additional Senators and ,three or four additional Represent- atives, and ask to be admitted into this Union, because she had exercised the power which they have called selfgovernment here so often — that great inherent power — should knock at our door, and state that policy required that we should admit that State formed wihin her limits into this Union. What would be the reply, sir ? There- ply would be, " You have done the act by usurpa- tion, by a palpable violation of the Consli'ution, which requires tha consent of Congress." Ah ! " the consent of Congress !" But cannot the con - sent of Consrress be given now as well as it could have been given antecedently? Why, sir, I admit that it would be perfectly competent for Congress to waive the objection and adopt the usurpation. I have no doubt that Congress might do that, under any circumstances. They might waive all objection to these States coming into the Union, by adopting the act of usurpation. This is not an un- usual principle in legal proceedings. In the case of the Me.xican treaty, after the power of the agent or the ambassador had been revoked by the Govern- ment, after he had formed a treaty in palpable violation of his instructions, we waived the objec- tions, and by retrospective contemplation, we adopted his act and made it our own. I hold that no p^ple have a right to form them- selves into a State without the consent of Congress, expressly or by implication given. I say that it is a usurpation of the power of Congress over this subject. That has been my proposition, and the proposition I intend to maintain if I can. But, before doing that, I will go somewhat into detail, to show that California has assumed her piesent position towards the Federal Government in vio- lation of all the securities of precedent, all the se- curities of usage. There is nothing like it in'the history of the Territories or States of the Union — nothing like it. In the first place, the people of California, by their convention, have appropriated not only a Territory to themselves, but they have assigned boundaries,withouteverhavingconsulted Congress one way oranother. Is thereanysuchinstanceto be found in the history of any Territorial Government or any State Government in the United States.? I challenge gentlemen to find a parallel or a prece- dent of the kind. Now let me not be told that this thing of boundary is a matter of no essential consequence. The boundary ! Why, the bound- aries of a commonwealth, sir, are, of all others, in a hieh political sense, matters ofpubUcijuris — matters with which Congress slfould deal; for they are such as affect deeply the great interest of other comniu- nities. And when any people undertake to assign boundaries to themselves — to assign to themselves six hundred miles, up and down upon the Pacific coast, without having consulted those who are the proprietors, so far as there was any public domain — without having consulted those who had vested in them the sovereign dominion, the sovereign j'::ris- diction over the country ceded by treaty — it is ta- king a very important privilige from Congress, and arrogating to themselves a power at war with the interests and rights of other communities. Sir, I ask the question, as 1 have a right to ask it, emphatically, have the people of California con- formed to the obligations of the treaty with Mexico, so far as regards the qualifications of voters .' Who voted .' Who are those twelve or thirteen thousand voters.' Were they free white men ? Were they Mexicans of Spanish blood ? Were they such Mexicans as were recognized as capable of becom- ing citizens under the terms of the treaty .' Why, sir, the President has not even condescended to give us any infi)rmation upon that subject at all. Who constituted this Government? From what clas.s of voters did this government emanate? Am I to be told that Congress has no jurisdiction over a subject of this kind? There is no instance of a Territorial Government in the organization of which Congre.ss did not prescribe or define the qualifications of voters. There isanoiher violation, Mr. President. I know instances will be quoted in which States havebcen admitted into this Union, where tiie people did not have the previous as- sent of Congress to assemble in convention for the t| formation of a constitution; but I will answer for }i it that they are not similar cases. jt There i.^ another particular in which California ]: has violated the usage. No State in this Union t] has come into it without Congress having previ- jl ously taken a census of its inhabitants. That was I done in Michigan, in Iowa, in Wisconsin, in Flor- j ida, and in all the other States. This has been the j uniform usage and precedent, so far as regards the I admission of other States. I am told, however, I that Iowa and Florida came into this Union by \ forming conventions without the previous leave of ! Congress. Iowa did hold a convention, and of- I fered a constitution here, claiming certain bound- aries, which Congress denied. She was sent I back, and returned, having been assigned different i Ijoundaries, and then she came into the Union with new boundaries. And therefore I think it may be said that Congress had given its consent by implication for the formation of a constitution and State Government. I say it was not only im- plied, but strongly implied, when "the boundaries were given her, that she had the power to do so. So far as regards Wisconsin, the same remark ! may be made. Congress gave her the right to \ have two members. That recognition of the right j to have two member^ was such a recognition as to give the previous consent of Congress that she I might form a constitution, and might then apply j for admission into this Union as one of the sover- eign States. Now, sir, with regard to the States I of Iowa and Florida: Florida had made applica- !j cation for years, four or five years, when Iowa !i came forward, and they came in pari passu — the j one as a slave State, and the other as a free State. They came in at the same time, and that, sir, by i consent, and, as I have strong reason to believe, ! by the previous or implied assent of Congress that j they should form constitutions and come into the 1 Union under their sanction. The same remark M may be made with regard to Michigan. I know ![ she did form and claim boundaries — not allowed to ! her, by-the-by — and she did form a constitution. i But did Michigan form a constitution or have any I convention, excepting when she was under territo- rial relations to this Government? Michigan was 1 governed by the United States through the agency I of Congress; and if she assembled a convention, it was under the implication at the time that Con- gress had giyen her the power of attorney to de- cide upon the time when she should come into the Union. 1 say, then, it was an implied consent in the case of Michigan. But, so far as regards California, not a single one of these coincidences exists. She comes here without having her boundaries fixed, without qualifications of voters being defined, without hav- ing any census, and, as I am very much inclined to think, under a suggestive influence from the Executive and his Cabinet to evade the responsi- i bility of meeting this question as it should have been met, and at the time when it could have been met, and at the time that it might have been set- tled satisfactorily to all parties. Sir, the admisj- sion of California will put it farther beyond settle- 6 ment, and every step we take we are approaching a precipice. Wlien this question first arose it could have been very easily adjusted by having the ordinary territorial governments, without any restriction whatever. They might have excluded slavery or not, as they thought proper, when they had matured themselves into the condition of States. But, to evade this Wilmot proviso, the people were left in a state of anarchy; and, under an operation of causes worse than the Wilmot proviso, they are claiming privileges now, by usurp- ation, to which they are not entitled. Is it not a usurpation in any point of view in which we can regard it.' Why, sir, in whom was vested a sovereignty over the citizens and the inhabitants under the treaty of California? In the United States. And I think the honorable Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Davis] the other day demon- strated that; and he put the proposition in so strong a point of view that I think it could not be misun- derstood; and the Senator from Georgia has left no ground for others to occupy. I venture to say that there are but very few individuals upon this floor who will contend, before any tribunal that could take cognizance of the subject, that a sover- eignty was not vested in the United States, to be exerted through the agency of their representatives in Congress. Th'^ right claimed under the doctrine of self-gov- ernment is extra-constitutional, and has no sanc- tion for its exercise. When analyzed, it is a right to dispen.«e with the prescriptions of the Constitu- tion, and to use a power in derogation of the rights of the States of this Union, in whom was vested the high sovereignty and eminent domain. I have heard it so often asserted that the people have a right to self-government, that I am inclined to think gentlemen conclude th it the authority of Congress is excluded. But such a proposition would sanction what I would regard the doctrine of self-appropriation. But if my proposition be true, California has no right, under her usurpation, to come here and claim to be admitted, unless we waive and adopt such acts of usurpation. I will not say that Congress may not make a precedent to subserve present interests, and forward the views of political propagandists; but, in doing so, they recognize the dangerous power of usurpation — one which may be well-received when it re- dounds to the advantage of a majority, but one which never will be allowed to the claims of a mi- nority. If southern slaveholders had done the same thing, and had not prohibited slavery in Cali- fornia in any constitution which they might have piesented, their acts would have been denounced and their proffered constitution rejected. Tiiere is a wonderful difference between the dictation of the strong and the suggestions of the weak. The course pursued in California, if recognized and adopted here, will be a precedent of mischief and danger to the security of the people of this coun- try. Why, upon the same doctrine, you may have a dozen States applying next year to come in, upon the ground that they have formed consti- tutions under the sanction of this precedent: aye, Minnesota; but Minnesota has now a Territorial Government — Nebraska is a recognized Territory. Deseret, New Mexico, and two or three States in Texas may come here by their delegations, with constitutions in their liands, and knock at your door for admission, and claim to do so, without having consulted Congress, under the very prece- dent you are about to establish. I have heard , sir, of the danger of the plan of the English power of making peers when they wanted votes. The power of issuing patents of nobility by royal prerogative has been rarely abused in England; it has often been dreaded, and at some times not resisted: a ministry Avanting power will always be under strong temptation to resort to it, and in some instances have abused it to the preju- dice of public liberty. The power now claimed of making new States under the spontaneous action of the people of a teiritory is foreign to the Constitution; but when it is recollected tiiat this power must be under the influence of Executive suggestion — indeed, under the moulding influence of one^f the departments of this Government that must always be under a strong influence to give itself strength or historical popularity, or even ephemeral popularity — it is time we should look to consequences. I do not say that the present Executive and his Cabinet have been influenced by such considerations. I have no reason to suppose so. But I ask, who may not be tempted to take advantage of them hereafter.' He that makes a precedent of to-day ought to look to' its consequences in the history of tomorrow. I wish that it was in the power of to-day to see the consequences of to-morrow. I hope I may say that I plant myself upon principle; 1 am sure I act from no personal resentment or objections. I cer- tainly can have no personal motive to reject the constitution of California, or to oppose those who came here under its authority. I do not know the Representatives; and my knowledge of the Sena- tors is entirely prepossessing — perhaps more than that, if I weie to yield to mere personal considera- tions. One of the Senators elect is from my own State; and it must be conceded that he is a gentle- man of enterprise and ability, and the trust re- posed in him is a worthy commentary from those who have sent him here. The other gentleman is not unknown to our legistative history, and has a < lAim on our favorable consideration. Indeed, I have no cause to distrust them, individually, in any of our controversies On the contrary, I would trust them to-morrow, whilst I would not trust to the precedent that would give their successors power hereafter. A majority is rarely indifferent to the counsels of expediency; and when personal influence is brought in as a powerful auxiliary, expediency usually prevails. I see its influence now, and I see those urging this measure that once looked upon California with scorn. I have always re- garded her as requiring the moulding influ